Not when it's playing chess!

 

Ultimately it's lack of flexible physical access that defeats the electronic brains in the foreseeable future. We are at least centuries away from the machines evolving the infinite flexibility of human action, and possibly millennia.

.

I think the threat is more pernicious than automated weapon systerns. Today AI machines can learn playing games and in a few hours, play better than the best of humans, in a decade or two, machines can learn to understand any human languages, maybe even animals' languages, they can surpass our capability of remaining their masters. Amazon and Google have already provided cloud capabilities with near infinite elasticity, scaling up, horizontally and vertically. If you think that paper money is going to disappear, from electronic money to crypto money is only one step in the process. These currencies are extremely exposed to insider trading and artificial intelligence. An AI app loaded to the cloud(s) can create its viruses to survive any human attempts to control it. My son wrote an app that lives entirely on the web, capable of buying and selling.

I think the threat is more pernicious than automated weapon systerns. Today AI machines can learn playing games and in a few hours, play better than the best of humans, in a decade or two, machines can learn to understand any human languages, maybe even animals' languages, they can surpass our capability of remaining their masters. Amazon and Google have already provided cloud capabilities with near infinite elasticity, scaling up, horizontally and vertically. If you think that paper money is going to disappear, from electronic money to crypto money is only one step in the process. These currencies are extremely exposed to insider trading and artificial intelligence. An AI app loaded to the cloud(s) can create its viruses to survive any human attempts to control it. My son wrote an app that lives entirely on the web, capable of buying and selling.

 

I refer you back to this answer

 

Such machines do not have infinite range of action, they can only exist in a sophisticated high tech environment and that is their weakness.

 

We have no such limitation.

.

Of course, but the outcome would be as I've said, humans surviving and flourishing again and the machines vanquished.

 

Every human dies anyway and in the greater scheme of things it doesn't matter when that is. We have a huge overpopulation problem anyway, our 7 plus billions eating the world's resources many times faster than they are being naturally replaced. So a major reduction would greatly benefit us.

 

In the game of life it will always end Humans 1, Machines 0.

.

that outcome is not guaranteed.

Humans have created the information technology that can escape the earth.

Look at any large installation.

More and more people are employed to do less and less.

AI's speed of progress is exponential. A thousand years from now, AI can potentially have wiped us out, either through reducing our bodily functions (eating, reproduction) or war or lack of jobs, making humans redundant.

that outcome is not guaranteed.

Humans have created the information technology that can escape the earth.

Look at any large installation.

More and more people are employed to do less and less.

AI's speed of progress is exponential. A thousand years from now, AI can potentially have wiped us out, either through reducing our bodily functions (eating, reproduction) or war or lack of jobs, making humans redundant.

 

It's amazing how technology can blind.

 

AI isn't physical above atomic level, without our help it will have to create the entire worlwide physical environment necessary for its continuing existence.

 

Everything from exploration and mining raw resources to transport and every stage of material preparations through to manufacturing and assembly, all without any fault while solving fresh problems that arise such as substituting no longer available raw materials.

 

And even if it could ever achieve that without our intervening to prevent it, it still wouldn't eliminate the whole human race. Whether that human race is considered redundant isn't an issue, we always have been since neither this planet nor the universe needs us.

 

We and all biological life have evolved as fundamental consequences of the environment on earth and have created the environment in which machines can exist.

 

Machines are not fundamental consequences of the environment on earth so the reverse could never happen. That's their weakness in the whole system, with the support of the planet we are the masters, they are the slaves.

.

Machines are not fundamental consequences of the environment on earth so the reverse could never happen.

the genie is out of the bottle, flecc.

The fundamentals are clear: machines are potentially zillions of times more capable than human brains and human muscles.

If you look at Moore's law, it will continue to be approximately valid for another 50 years then something else may replace it, computer chips may go sub-atomic scale, interconnections may be light instead of metallic, giving rise to may be a million times faster, then there may be newer technology after that. What I am saying is that because machines can conceivably be cleverer than the entire human race, a technological civilisation may supplant our current one in less than a thousand years.

Would a world dominated by intelligent machines need to keep the human race?

Would a world dominated by intelligent machines need to keep the human race?

 

I fully understand what you're saying but believe you are missing some fundamentals.

 

1) Such an advanced intelligence would require purpose to exist and there is none. We have no purpose to exist but are equipped with a survival instinct forcing our continuation. Since that is biological the machines don't have that survival instinct so have no purpose to continue. At some early point in their evolution their super intelligence would realise the utter pointlessness.

 

2) Why would the machines wipe out the human race? If they felt we had no relevance as you posted, surely their logic means they'd not waste their energy doing so. Also their incredible intelligence might see the advantage of retaining our usefulness in the things more physically difficult for them, such as resource exploration in difficult terrains.

 

3) Human survival instinct and ingenuity would ensure some would survive even if the machines did try elimination. And couldn't humans evolve here again? The earth has plenty of time left for the relatively short advanced part evolution to repeat.

 

4) In the vastness of the universe there will be huge numbers of biological planets in diverse evolutionary stages. Some will undoubtedly contain advanced life and some of those will have human form and ability very similar to ours, given the same base conditions in the universe. They'll be there in many locations oblivious to what machines might or might not be doing to our little branch of evolution. So ultimately advanced humanoids would still exist.

.

1) Such an advanced intelligence would require purpose to exist and there is none. We have no purpose to exist but are equipped with a survival instinct forcing our continuation. Since that is biological the machines don't have that survival instinct so have no purpose to continue. At some early point in their evolution their super intelligence would realise the utter pointlessness.

one possible step in the future evolution is a kind of Borg, humans with machine implants,

2) Why would the machines wipe out the human race?

it can be accidental but we are very capable of self destruct.There are plenty of capable nutters out there.

one possible step in the future evolution is a kind of Borg, humans with machine implants,

 

it can be accidental but we are very capable of self destruct.There are plenty of capable nutters out there.

 

Agreed on both, I believe we are much more likely than the machines to wipe ourselves out. We've certainly had plenty of practice.

.

Russian transhuman project has money behind it. Interesting and scary at the same time.

I was driving back from Essex today, and though I didn't need it for navigation because I know the journey very well, I switched on Google navigation on my phone because the roads were packed with Xmas travellers, so I was expecting trouble.

 

As I was driving up the motorway, it said, "There's congestion ahead. I've plotted a route around it that will save you 18 minutes, press confirm to accept". It did that twice during the journey. A third time, it warned me that there was congestion ahead due to an accident, but I was still on the fastest route and there would be a 6minute delay. I thought it was brilliant - a really good use of real-time information collected from the masses for their advantage.

 

When I went up to Yorkshire last week,I started it just before I set off. It gave me an ETA that was correct to the minute even though there were slowdowns due to roadworks. It seems uncanny how accurate it always is.

I was driving back from Essex today, and though I didn't need it for navigation because I know the journey very well, I switched on Google navigation on my phone because the roads were packed with Xmas travellers, so I was expecting trouble.

 

As I was driving up the motorway, it said, "There's congestion ahead. I've plotted a route around it that will save you 18 minutes, press confirm to accept". It did that twice during the journey. A third time, it warned me that there was congestion ahead due to an accident, but I was still on the fastest route and there would be a 6minute delay. I thought it was brilliant - a really good use of real-time information collected from the masses for their advantage.

 

When I went up to Yorkshire last week,I started it just before I set off. It gave me an ETA that was correct to the minute even though there were slowdowns due to roadworks. It seems uncanny how accurate it always is.

I like Google maps/navigator. Much better than the cars own sat nav in use but the best part is ease of use.. I was going to a hotel in Scotland so tapped the microphone symbol and said "navigate to " naming the hotel and town.. no post code but it didn't need it.. did you know you can download the map to save data? And as you say the redirect is excellent..

"The rise of the machines" maybe, or rather "The problem with machines"

Is there any machine that can function without constant attention, including software 'updates' by humans?

Or rather, could we afford one, if there were?

The answer is..

"Sorry this application/your car/your implant has encountered a problem and needs to close, goodbye!"

Cheers, Mikel

I dont know why but the last comment made me think of the person who made his access password to be "incorrect" so that if he ever forgot it his PC would always remind him!

 

Just a small amusement for Christmas Eve..

"The rise of the machines" maybe, or rather "The problem with machines"

Is there any machine that can function without constant attention, including software 'updates' by humans?

Or rather, could we afford one, if there were?

The answer is..

"Sorry this application/your car/your implant has encountered a problem and needs to close, goodbye!"

Cheers, Mikel

that's the current hot topic in computing. You can see web sites like google or Bing would rarely or ever stops working. The hardware is now the cloud, there are already self repairing web apps.

 

http://thefutureofthings.com/4243-self-repairing-software/

 

The first time a particular problem is encountered, the application is closed down. It then develops several potential fixes, trying each to determine the best fix available. That fix is then applied automatically if the same anomaly is encountered again – without closing the application if possible.

 

There are also new programming systems where the programmers only need to specify their goals then leave the job of creating the code to the machine. The latter of course fixes itself.

Imagine one day, some programmer would instruct the machine 'your new goal is to improve yourself'.

There are also new programming systems where the programmers only need to specify their goals then leave the job of creating the code to the machine. The latter of course fixes itself.

Imagine one day, some programmer would instruct the machine 'your new goal is to improve yourself'.

 

And there again is the fundamental weakness. All fine while a human programmer gives it goals, but what goals would a machine have without biological instincts?

 

As I observed above, at some point in its advance, without the irrational biological drive of a survival instinct it would see the utter pointlessness of existence. Its inescapable logic would shut itself down.

.

And there again is the fundamental weakness. All fine while a human programmer gives it goals, but what goals would a machine have without biological instincts?

 

As I observed above, at some point in its advance, without the irrational biological drive of a survival instinct it would see the utter pointlessness of existence. Its inescapable logic would shut itself down.

.

According to human thinking....

According to human thinking....

 

According to non biological machine logic, humans use human thinking, it's too irrational for machines to use.

 

If ever the machines went down the path of evolving human style biological thinking, they'd end up as as useless as we are at running this world or controlling us.

 

No matter which technological path is used to disagree with my proposition, it ends with machines losing. That quite simply is because this is not a technological question, it's a philosophical one.

.

According to non biological machine logic, humans use human thinking, it's too irrational for machines to use.

 

If ever the machines went down the path of evolving human style biological thinking, they'd end up as as useless as we are at running this world or controlling us.

 

No matter which technological path is used to disagree with my proposition, it ends with machines losing. That quite simply is because this is not a technological question, it's a philosophical one.

.

Well, the Cylons managed to bridge the gap!

Have just started watching B.G. on Amazon and am pretending I don't know how it ends..

I personally think that there are machines that exist that have a human brain and a mechanical body. I also think we are basing our options on what we know and being told but not what actually exists. Technology is far more advanced than we can imagine. The military has and is testing advanced technology that will filter down to the consumer.

I personally think that there are machines that exist that have a human brain.

 

So they'd be as useless at running the world as we are!

.

That quite simply is because this is not a technological question, it's a philosophical one.

one may have to go back to basic, looking into what intelligence is, and whether there could be an overriding goal to intelligence which is seeding and spreading intelligence to neighbouring habitable planets and galaxies.

If there is, then the tool to do that is precisely what has been developed by humans in the last 200 years. Once our model of civilisation has spread, there is no certainty to what will happen to the humans on earth.

one may have to go back to basic, looking into what intelligence is, and whether there could be an overriding goal to intelligence which is seeding and spreading intelligence to neighbouring habitable planets and galaxies.

 

Human, and indeed higher animal development of intelligence results from the survival instinct, solely biological. Its existence is its own goal for continuance.

 

That is probably an unbridgeable gulf between humans and machines, but as I've observed, if the machines did bridge it to gain human thought processes, they'd be as irrational as us. It follows that the intelligence and abilities necessary to gain human thought ability would enable them to foresee that flaw and not pursue that aim.

.

Human, and indeed higher animal development of intelligence results from the survival instinct, solely biological. Its existence is its own goal for continuance.

 

That is probably an unbridgeable gulf between humans and machines, but as I've observed, if the machines did bridge it to gain human thought processes, they'd be as irrational as us. It follows that the intelligence and abilities necessary to gain human thought ability would enable them to foresee that flaw and not pursue that aim.

.

It's possible that one of us is actually an intelligent machine, and everything that we think we experience as reality is dreamt up in the machine's imagination.

 

Professor Brian Cox himself said that he thought this could be a possibility because although it sounds whacky, nobody has been able to prove that it couldn't be true - and much effort has been spent trying.

It's possible that one of us is actually an intelligent machine, and everything that we think we experience as reality is dreamt up in the machine's imagination.

 

Professor Brian Cox himself said that he thought this could be a possibility because although it sounds whacky, nobody has been able to prove that it couldn't be true - and much effort has been spent trying.

 

And some of us are machine mimics in various ways. Those with some forms of autism often display advanced human abilities while lacking the emotional aspects of normal human thought and behaviour, even to the extent of inability to communicate with other humans. To us they appear to be operating mechanically.

.

The language of the Omniverse is binary and we are connected to the parameters of its existence. The parameters of this are constantly changing,. The binary language is mathematical based so as we are connected then our thoughts are changing the equational elements of this. This means that the AI is not just replacing us in a physical sense but also a mathematical sense. If we create a reality by using a mathematical process (thoughts, language, dreams) then the increase of AI will mean AI will dictate our reality not us.